Editors’ note: The following article comes from the fall 2009 edition of the Nonprofit Quarterly,“Balancing Act,” and was first published online on September 21, 2009. It was adapted from Kim Klein’s book, Reliable Fundraising in Unreliable Times, published by Jossey-Bass. In it, Klein shares strategies for surviving and thriving in any economy. The book is filled with practical advice on short- and long-term fundraising strategies and on issues that have an impact on fundraising, such as the role of nonprofits in working for the common good, the role of taxes in creating a just society, and the need for new organizational forms to accomplish nonprofit work.

In hard times, people begin to pose false choices: “We cannot go to the movies until there is world peace, we cannot have a ballet until there is no homelessness, we cannot save birds until all children are well fed.” They see cutting funding, pulling back, as the only way to respond to the economic downturn. The more people react in this way, the more it seems they have taken some kind of sourpuss vow: they will not laugh until oppression has ended.

In fact, there is enough money for all our nonprofits. Granted, to get them all funded will require rethinking national priorities and a redistribution of wealth, but there is no shortage of money.

The case statement is the cornerstone for raising money effectively, the message is specific to the moment; it simply shows the world that you have read the paper, listened to the news, and are conscious of what is happening around you. It places your work in the context of the larger world. It faces current reality squarely.

An affordable-housing group believes people should be able to live in the community in which they work. When the organization launched, its community had low unemployment, but people commuted from nearby towns because housing near their workplace was so expensive. Two years later, the community has high unemployment and people are losing their homes because they can’t pay their rent or mortgage. The affordable-housing organization maintains the same mission: “People should be able to live where they work,” but now it institutes other actions to fulfill its mission. To help people stay in their homes, for example, the organization creates an emergency loan fund so people can borrow money easily for housing costs and works with local banks to stop foreclosures. Its message is “We make sure that losing your job does not mean losing your home.”

The organization’s mission is the same, but the message reflects what is happening with housing in the community. It also reflects some very hard work on the part of the board and staff to create these new programs.

Here’s another example of a distinction between mission and message that a youth symphony orchestra uses to avoid a crisis. This well-regarded group serving a large geographic area has as its mission: “We believe children who have musical talent should be able to develop it as fully as possible and the community should benefit from the talent of its younger members.” Suddenly, two sources of funding are threatened: a state arts endowment grant is cut, and a foundation the organization had counted on has more pressing needs to fill. Just as the group loses its funding, the number of children signing up for its summer music camps and trying out for its programs increases. The organization realizes that many kids are eager for a musical education that the public schools no longer offer. While the group’s mission remains the same, it adjusts its message to be more compelling during these times: “Children should be musically educated. We augment the work of the schools in providing musical education for children.” This message puts forth the organization’s belief that the public schools should provide music and art education.

Next the organization forms an advocacy task force with parents and board members to pressure the legislature to find money for music education in the public schools. In the meantime, it continues to meet an immediate need. When it presents this point of view to its funder, the funder reconsiders and restores the grant. With its new message, the group can also attract donors who may not be that interested in music but who agree that music should be part of children’s education.

Mission is forever, but message is more urgent and immediate.

Underlining all my recommendations about developing your message is my firm conviction that you are always best off telling the truth and only the truth. But you may not be telling the whole truth until you are sure that you know it. In big crises, truth has a way of changing with time and who does the telling.

When Message Is Damage Control

When an organization is in an internal crisis, the message is more along the lines of damage control: explaining what happened and making sure that everyone who should has the information he or she needs.

An organization has a history of sloppily kept or nonexistent donor records. Gifts are often not recorded properly, people are not thanked or are thanked for the wrong thing, donors are “reminded” of pledges they have not made. A new development director has been hired to improve the situation, and the message has gone out to board members that these problems have been resolved. But early in the new development director’s tenure, several events cause the board to question whether record keeping has actually improved. First, a major donor tells a board member that his pledge form commits him to a $10,000 gift when he pledged only $5,000. The executive director speaks to all parties; though the development director insists the pledge was for $10,000, the donor is equally sure it was for $5,000. The executive director changes the pledge form, reassures the development director that this donor has been inconsistent in the past, and alerts the board member that this was probably not a record-keeping issue. Next, the development director seriously overstates the return on a direct-mail appeal. When the discrepancy surfaces, he claims that his math was faulty because he was so busy entering respondents into the database that he figured out the percentage of response in his head. The third month, the development director announces an impending grant for $25,000. When the executive director calls to thank the foundation funder, she learns no such grant has been proposed, nor is one forthcoming.

Now the executive director realizes that the previous “truth” of bad systems has been overshadowed by a bigger current truth: the development director is a liar. She fires the development director immediately and calls the board chair, who informs the board members of what has happened. The executive director talks to the two other staff members. They and the board chair agree that the message will be as follows: “We were unable to get accurate information from the development office. Since the development director was on probation, we have terminated his contract.” The board members and the staff will know more specifics, but no one else needs to.

The executive director lets the foundation funder know that the development director has been terminated because he gave misleading information and asks the funder to pass the information on to anyone who needs to know. This funder is a reliable and trusted member of the funding community and likes this group. Her word among funders and major donors that things are being handled properly is important.

This organization averted a more serious crisis by handling the situation immediately once it understood what had taken place. During this crisis, only a few people really needed to be involved, but they were kept informed all the way. By enlisting a trusted messenger—the foundation funder—the organization controlled fallout from the development director’s actions.

Getting the Board and Staff on Board

In crises, we often focus on the opinions of people outside the group: donors, clients, even the general public. Yet our greatest difficulty in forming a message and relaying it is often at the board or staff level. It is critical that board and staff believe their opinions are welcome; further, they must not feel that they are being asked to lie or be evasive with others. Board and staff must be involved in the process of exploring options and discussing all the points of view, or they can quickly feel stifled. In one such situation, the board chair explained to a major donor, “I’ll tell you what I am supposed to say and leave you to read between the lines.” His explanation was lost; the message “I leave you to read between the lines” overshadowed other information. One funder reported to a small group, “Even the board chair just says, ‘Read between the lines.’” Needless to say, this is not good message development.

Your message should not be evasive or vague. If there are legal issues involved, ask your lawyer what you can say and what would be legally dangerous or off limits. But if there are no legal issues, figure out how you can tell the whole truth but also emphasize the mission of the group. Message development may take some time and may bring important discussions to light as the crisis develops and is worked through. The process of developing the message can also be part of the message, particularly when part of the board has divergent opinions, as in the following example.

An after-school program for teenagers provides a basketball court, a bank of computers for doing homework, an art room, and volunteer adult counselors. Half the funding for the program comes from the local department of parks and recreation, and the other half from the business community and a cross-section of parents. The program has one paid staff person and 50 volunteers; its budget is $150,000.

The parks and recreation department is forced to make serious budget cuts in its programs, resulting in a cut of $50,000 of its grant of $75,000 to the after-school program. Because of the economic downturn, some businesses also cut back on donations to the program. In a matter of months, the organization suffers a 40 percent decrease in funding.

The board calculates that it can run the program at its current level for six months while it figures out how to raise more money. It announces to the parents and students, “Everything is fine right now. We are seeking other sources of funding, and we encourage each of you to give and help raise money.”

As the board works with the executive director to create a fundraising plan, philosophical differences develop. Many board members worked hard to advocate for government funding for the program. The mission of the organization—“Teenagers are a community asset and need to be nurtured”—implies that the government has a role. These board members feel that even if the program could be sustained with private donations, it shouldn’t be. It would be more principled to close it. “That’s not fair to the kids,” says the other faction. “We have to try to run the program on less money or raise money elsewhere.” The board is further split when one member suggests renting part of the space to Armed Services recruiters, supporting the view that the Armed Services offers good jobs and scholarships for kids, along with possible income for the program. Longtime peace activists in the group are appalled at the potential sellout. Two months pass, with each faction becoming more firmly entrenched and with no money being raised and no plan formed for cutting expenses. The message “We are exploring options” has worn thin, particularly as the various arguments are put forward to the parents, students, and business community. Everyone has an opinion.

The board decides on a bold course: get community input on the various options. The board writes a short letter to parents, teachers, businesspeople, and the community at large presenting the dilemma and inviting them to a meeting: “How do we best show how much our teenagers mean to us? We believe our program deserves government funding. But in these times, that kind of funding is not available. If we are to replace our lost grant, we must have help from the entire community.”

About 50 people attend the meeting and meet for four hours. At the end, consensus is reached: the program will seek private funding, but the city council will be asked to pass a resolution declaring the program a city treasure. Seeking government funding will be a top priority. The center will not be available to the Armed Services or other recruiters. As has always been true, employers can post job announcements and anyone can post announcements of scholarships, internships, and volunteer or job opportunities.

The message generated during the meeting is simple: “We have chosen to put teenagers ahead of all other concerns. We believe teenagers are a community asset, and we as a community pledge to keep this program open.” By going public with their differences, this organization ensured that differences of opinion about the future of the center could be reviewed in one place at one time and be resolved.

Delivering the Message

The process of creating a message cannot be separated from the process of creating a response to the crisis. But groups usually cannot wait until a full response is put in place before putting forth a message. Donors, staff, and the public need information about what is going on with the organization.

The message that you start with, then, should involve the least amount of truth you can deliver without appearing to hide something. In fact, part of your message can be that you will send out additional information as it becomes available. Don’t be nervous to admit that you don’t know everything yet. It is better to have “not knowing” be part of the message than to say something that turns out to be false and have to issue a correction. Further, the message cannot be separated from the messenger. Finding well-respected and trustworthy people to help you deliver your message is just as important as the message itself. They can deliver the message and then conclude (assuming they feel this way), “I think everything will be fine” or “I have a lot of confidence in the team of people who are working on this.” Finally, fundraisers always have to take into account that there is an order in which the message will be delivered. Make sure that you don’t inadvertently alienate someone simply by not informing that person of the situation early on.

Like the response to the crisis itself, the process of delivering the message involves several parts. Make a list of those who need to hear about the crisis first. In addition to board and staff, think about anyone who considers themselves close to your organization: that is, the organizational “family.” This includes active volunteers, longtime funders, longtime major donors, and former staff and board. In choosing whom to tell first, don’t create such a long list that you then spend time calling people rather than planning. These close-in people are also often those you will approach for donations. Remember, you can always tell someone, but you cannot untell that person. When in doubt about telling someone, wait.

Next, identify who should deliver the message to these people and how they should get it. Generally, those who are told are told through a call or a visit. Avoid e-mail, which can be forwarded easily, may take on a life of its own, and can create meanings that would not be present if the message were delivered personally. Longtime donors, funders, and volunteers make great messengers. Board members—particularly the chair of a board—can deliver the message but may be perceived to be too close to the situation, possibly involved in creating the problem, and too defensive. Major donors are usually told by those who have solicited gifts from them in the past. The people who are told first can be enlisted to tell others. Since these people will probably want to tell someone anyway, this approach provides some control over message delivery.

Institute a regular way to keep the people on the list updated about what is happening. As in many crises, if the situation unfolds over time, create a phone tree to keep people up to date. At this point, you can create an e-mail newsletter, but remember: anything you write in e-mail can wind up anywhere—at the office of the FBI, on the front page of a newspaper, or in the inbox of the person you have fired. E-mail needs to be considered public information and no amount of marking it “CONFIDENTIAL” can change that.

Talking with Major Donors about the Crisis

In a crisis, major donors need attention and reassurance. When an organization is in a crisis, the donors who agree to talk with you—even on the phone—need reassurance that their gift won’t go down the drain. Will you raise the money you need? Will you be back next year with yet another crisis? Do you know what you are doing? How did you get into this mess in the first place?

Even if they are not able to articulate it, most donors realize that a crisis is not just a big problem in an otherwise smoothly functioning organization. While what caused the crisis may not be your fault, a crisis has a longer history than the crisis event.

The following four tips can reassure almost all major donors; and you may need just one or two to reassure them effectively. These four elements are an explanation, a plan, evidence of other donors, and an escape clause.

An explanation.Major donors are like family. In a family, when someone has a heart attack or a couple decides to separate, relatives expect more information about the situation than, say, a neighbor. And part of major donors’ insecurity is that, if it could happen to you, are their other beneficiaries far behind? Explain to these donors what has been told to others close to the organization. Don’t launch into a long explanation, but allow the donor to ask you what he wants to know and be open to the donor’s questions.

A fundraising plan is a source of reassurance because it shows that you have thought through what is required in the coming months to move beyond the crisis. Your plan should be as realistic as possible. But plans also shape reality, so your plan needs to be optimistic. Be prepared to show the prospect your cash-flow chart and a strategy-by-strategy description, including gross and net incomes for each strategy. Show your gift-range chart, and talk about how many other prospects you have.

Help from other donors.Evidence that others have bought into this plan is important. As you receive gifts, ask whether you can share the donor’s name and size of gift with other prospects. If a donor knows that Manuel has given $5,000, and he respects Manuel, he is more likely to make a gift. For donors that are reluctant to share their name and gift amount, you can always tell a prospect, “Two other donors have given $10,000” without using their names. Having board buy-in is also critical. Even if board members cannot be major donors, you need to be able to say, “One hundred percent of our board members have made a gift that is significant for them to demonstrate their faith in our future.”

An escape plan. Some donors need a contingency; they will give only if certain things happen. But a way out should be offered only when a donor indicates that’s what it needs to pledge a gift. If an organization follows through on the three elements above, most donors do not require this fourth element.

What does an escape plan look like in fundraising? Let’s say you approach someone for a lead gift of $10,000 on a $100,000 goal. The person is committed but hesitates, asking questions about where the other $90,000 will come from. Ask how close to the goal of $100,000 your organization must be for the donor to believe that the campaign will succeed. Some will say, “If you had half of it, I would feel better.” Others will say, “If you get one more big gift, I would feel better.” Offer the donor the option of pledging conditionally. A challenge gift is a great motivator. Sometimes the challenge is not about the amount of money but who gives it. A donor may say, “I’d feel better if I knew Fred was in. He is so smart about these things.” You would then say, “Can we get back to you after we have talked with Fred?” Go even further and say, “Can we tell Fred you said this?” When you approach Fred, tell him that his leadership gift will lead to another gift. Finally, some donors want to give some now and some when you raise additional monies from other donors.

Financial Scandals

Simply getting more donors is not reassuring to a prospective donor that wonders how your executive director managed to skim off $75,000 over three years without anyone noticing. Moreover, it’s not helpful that the treasurer of the board knew about and tried to deal with the problem quietly. In the second scenario, how can a donor trust an organization’s veracity or judgment when it turns out that a program staff member filed a false report—a report that was signed by both the executive director and board chair? Their protestations that they didn’t have time to read the report do not make anyone feel better. In both cases, an enterprising young reporter has scooped these stories for the local paper, and they are the talk of the town (or that part of town that cares about these organizations).

Scandals are difficult to deal with because they break trust. Now, the question is not whether your plan will succeed but whether you really can fix an organization that has allowed such behavior. Returning to message, you should identify those who can say that your organization can be trusted and the problems are being addressed. Talk with these people. What would they need to see in the organization to confidently say good things about it or put money into it?

In a scandal, finding the context of the problem goes a long way in reassuring others that the problem can be solved. The executive director who skimmed $75,000 from his organization had a gambling problem, for example. The treasurer of the board and a staff person knew the director was stealing but tried to deal with the problem quietly so as not to embarrass him. The director has now been fired and is in a recovery program. The organization learned a lesson in how to deal with painful situations and has even allowed a consultant to write up its situation as a case study for other organizations. While context does not excuse anyone, understanding the context allows for compassion.

In the second scenario, context is even more important. The newspaper story rightly said that a staff person filed a false report. But what was the nature of the falsification? The staff person lied about the progress the organization had made on creating an earned-income venture. She claimed that a business plan was almost complete and the organization was ready to hire a staff person when those accomplishments were at least six months in the future. The executive director signed the false report—and the board chair went along—because he thought the project delays might cause the funder not to pay the second half of the grant. The executive director should simply go to the funder and say the project is behind. This will not be the first time the funder has heard that! Instead, he tried to operate in secret and in turn a newspaper reported that the organization had lied when in fact the error resulted from bad judgment. When the program officer of the foundation finds out what has really happened, she gives an extension on the grant and pays for the executive director to get executive coaching to help him make better decisions in the future.

In a scandal, donors need to know that the circumstances that created the scandal no longer exist and that the organization is thoroughly evaluating itself to ensure that nothing else is amiss. From a fundraising viewpoint, a scandal is hard to deal with and requires even more reaching out than other kinds of crises. Tell the truth, and tell it to those whom other people trust.

In the end, donors are your friends, and major donors are your family. They may not like what you do, but they will generally stand by you if they have enough history with you to know that this scandal is something you did—and not something you are.

Everything Comes Back to Mission

Creating a message during a crisis is relatively simple once the organization recommits itself to its mission. Program or fundraising direction may have to change because of the crisis, but that step is possible as long as a group of people cares deeply about the organization. If you see telling the truth as the only option, it limits what you can say. Don’t make something up or pretend something is true that is not. You will figure out who needs to hear the truth from whom, and when they need to hear it.

Kim Klein is an internationally known fundraising trainer and has worked in all aspects of fundraising: as staff, as volunteer, as board member, and as consultant. Kim is the author of five books including her most recent, "Reliable Fundraising in Unreliable Times." Her classic text, "Fundraising for Social Change," now in its seventh edition, is widely used in the field and in university degree programs. She is the author of the “Dear Kim” column in the e-newsletter of GIFT, answering questions posed by readers.

Governance is a crucial component of any nonprofit’s success. It’s also one of the hardest aspects of nonprofit leadership to get right. We have observed this truth firsthand over many years of conducting due diligence on a wide range of nonprofits, first for the Henry R. Kravis Prize in Nonprofit Leadership and now at King Philanthropies. And research buttresses this observation: In a survey of nonprofit chief executives and board chairs conducted in 2015 for the BoardSource report “Leading with Intent,” respondents on average gave nonprofit boards a grade of B-minus in overall performance. Indeed, many people in the nonprofit sector simply assume that ineffective boards are par for the course. This sort of negative thinking all too easily becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy—one that we firmly reject.

Board governance is one component of the engine of impact that every nonprofit organization must build and tune to become truly effective. Leaders who want their organization to achieve maximum impact must embrace the essentials of strategic leadership. We compare this kind of intentional leadership to a high-performance engine. Previously in this series, we have discussed six components of that engine: mission, strategy, impact evaluation, insight and courage, organization and talent, and funding. The seventh and last component is strong and steady board governance.

Any organization can improve the performance of its board if its executives and board members are ready to confront the people, process, and behavioral challenges that prevent the board from operating at an A-plus level. We have identified six principles of effective nonprofit governance, and we will address three of them here. (We discuss all of these principles in detail in our book, Engine of Impact.)

Structure your board to support effective decision making.A simple way to approach the issue of board composition is to honor the venerable idea of the Three Ws: work, wisdom, and wealth. Your goal should be to attract board members who bring at least one of these critical assets to the table. Excellent board composition is not a conceptual challenge; it is, rather, a matter of recruiting one strong board member after another.

Every nonprofit board needs a core of people who are going to work—people who will contribute their time, effort, and energy to the organization. These board members undertake vital activities such as leading fundraising dinners, cultivating potential board members and donors, reviewing audits, and much more.

For our purposes, wisdom can be any special talent or area of expertise that helps an organization achieve its mission. It might be directly germane to that mission—a hospital will have medical professionals on its board, for instance—or it might involve a skill (such as financial management) or an institutional connection that enables an organization to survive and grow.

The importance of contributing wealth is self-evident: All members of a well-functioning nonprofit board must be able and willing to embrace their fundraising responsibilities. A board needs not only members who will give generously but also members who will solicit generous donations from others. We believe that 100 percent board participation in giving is an appropriate goal, but we acknowledge that not every board member needs to be a major donor. Nonprofit boards should reflect the diversity of the societies in which they operate, and adhering to that standard frequently means including members who are not affluent.

Evaluate and sustain your board. A nonprofit board should periodically review and assess the performance of each of its members. To support that process, the board should have a governance committee, and each member of that committee should be responsible for a group of board members. As a board member’s term nears its completion, the governance committee members should conduct a thorough evaluation that includes interviews with other board members and face-to-face discussion with the member in question. The decision to renew a board member’s term should occur only after that evaluation is complete and only by a vote of the full governance committee. Unfortunately, this kind of rigorous evaluation is rare. In the Stanford Survey on Leadership and Management in the Nonprofit Sector—a study that we conducted to support our research—only 51 percent of board members indicated that they “receive regular and specific feedback” that helps them improve their board service.

In part to avoid uncomfortable conversations with nonperforming board members, some nonprofits implement formal term limits. We discourage nonprofits from taking that approach, which can needlessly cause the loss of valuable board members. Many people who sit on nonprofit boards, we have observed, are able to sustain their passion for an organization and its work for decades. A term-limit policy also has another, more tangible disadvantage: A study of nonprofits in New York City found that average board giving among boards with term limits was $5.5 million, compared with $16.3 million among boards without such limits.

Engage board members seriously. Board members need to be able to engage directly and deeply in the substantive work of their organization. Otherwise, board meetings will degenerate into a staff-driven, prebaked exercise that is of minimal benefit to anyone. Helen Keller International (HKI) uses several methods to ensure that its board members retain a high degree of engagement. To make sure that board members remain alert and curious during meetings, for example, HKI focuses the agenda for each meeting on high-level strategy and relegates committee reporting either to separate committee meetings or to board-book documents. The organization also requires every board member to visit HKI programs in Asia or Africa at least once every three years. “I don’t mean to sound corny, but these visits provide a visceral connection to the work,” says HKI president and CEO Kathy Spahn.

It may sound obvious, but boards cannot lead effectively if they do not understand the organization’s work. BoardSource’s 2017 study, Leading with Intent, shows just how important this understanding is.

Based on this research, board members’ knowledge of programs correlates to stronger (or weaker) performance across several areas, including:

Strategic thinking and planning

Overall engagement and commitment

External leadership and ambassadorship, including fundraising and advocacy

The 2017 version of Leading with Intent from BoardSource is a treasure trove of information about nonprofit board trends, but its purview is far too broad for us to manage in the context of one article. Therefore, Nonprofit Quarterly (NPQ) will divide its coverage into a small series, with this first being the headliner. NPQ means for these pieces to further both exploration and action, so look for a webinar series that will launch next week in combination with BoardSource.

After a fraught last few years in terms of national attention to issues of race, one would expect that nonprofit boards would demonstrate at least a modicum of advancement in the realm of diversity. The comparative statistics shown in Leading with Intent: 2017 National Index of Nonprofit Board Practices tell a different story. Based on a recent biennial survey, any advances between 2015 and 2017 regarding the leadership positions of board chair and CEO were marginal ones. The proportionate number of board members of color even decreased slightly, as the number of groups with all-white boards increased from 25 percent of those surveyed in 2015 to 27 percent now.

What’s worse yet is that few if any boards appear all that concerned about the issue. AsVernetta Walker, Chief Governance Officer and Vice President of BoardSource, says, that’s unacceptable in a sector that purports to represent whole communities.

The 2017 Leading with Intent report provides an entire range of information that nonprofit leaders should find enormously useful, and we’ll go into those issues later. But, this particular set of findings should be considered a burning platform for nonprofits in 2017. While differences in respondents may have some impact here, at the very least, the picture shows stagnation over the past two years with little evident motivation to change.

The Findings on Nonprofit Board Diversity

SURVEY

2015

2017

Proportion of CEOs that are Caucasian

90%

89%

Proportion of board chairs that are Caucasian

90%

89%

Proportion of board members that are Caucasian

80%

84%

Proportion of boards that are all Caucasian

25%

27%

According to the census, as of July 2016, white people (or Caucasians) who identify as neither Hispanic nor Latinx make up 61.3 percent of the population of the U.S.; add the Latinx-identified back in, and the total white population rises to 76.9 percent. (Latinx people were counted separately in the BoardSource study.)

The increase in the number of all-white boards is surely cause for alarm, but even more alarming is the low-priority status that boards have given to this longstanding problem. As BoardSource reports, 64 percent of the nonprofit CEOs surveyed are “somewhat dissatisfied” or “extremely dissatisfied” with the level of racial and ethnic diversity on their boards. Compare that with the 41 percent of surveyed board chairs who responded the same way.

In addition, as the report states, “Chief executive responses highlight an understanding of the many ways that diversity (or lack of diversity) can impact an organization’s reputation…80 percent of executives report that diversity and inclusion is important, or very important, to ‘enhancing the organization’s standing with the general public’ [as well as the] respect of funders and donors: 72 percent of executives report that diversity and inclusion is important, or very important, to ‘increase fundraising or expand donor networks.’” However, among those executives who called themselves extremely dissatisfied, only 25 percent reported that diversity was a priority in board recruitment.

"Leaders like you have to make clear that this kind of change is necessary for the survival and effectiveness of your nonprofit. Focus on that idea; does your board take this precept seriously?"

“I am seeing more executives trying to push the envelope by keeping the issues on the table, but the problem isn’t always the executive,” says Walker, who works with many nonprofits as they try to work through a variety of issues, including their diversity and inclusion practices, “Quite often, it’s the board.”

Effective executives are constantly thinking about the changing environment and what their organizations need to change to make a difference, including the board’s racial/ethnic composition to more authentically represent the people they serve or to better understand different perspectives on issues they address. A homogenous board may not readily see or understand the impact of policies, practices, and decisions on racial and marginalized groups, or be willing to think differently about how it can create space for change—let alone take action. Chief executives can prioritize the issues, but the board has to step up for real traction.

In the organizations with boards that are entirely white, only 64 percent of executives feel that expanding the board’s racial and ethnic diversity is “important” or “extremely important,” and only 11 percent said diversity was a high priority in board recruitment.

Long story short, though many boards and executives are wringing their collective hands, when it comes time to prioritize, ethnic and racial representation rank low on the list of important considerations. In a way, learning this is more distressing than it would be to hear that this issue went unacknowledged by nonprofit leaders. Instead, many do acknowledge it but don’t feel they must act.

There seems to be a powerful barrier to board resolve and action. But to have this article be more helpful than simple remonstration, NPQ has to acknowledge the risks inherent in starting a real inclusion process. The kind of unmentionable barriers to doing what’s needed require naming the problem. Can we talk about what’s in the way?

Frozen in Place: Seeking a Discussion of Undiscussables

Perhaps renown interaction sociologist Erving Goffman can offer clarity about what happens in the murky realm between human aspiration and human realities inEncounters, Goffman differentiated between focused interactions and unfocused interactions. Focusedinteraction “occurs when people effectively agree to sustain for a time a single focus of cognitive and visual attention.” Unfocused interaction “consists of those interpersonal communications that result solely by virtue of persons being in another’s presence…while each modifies his own demeanor because he himself is under observation.” Goffman focused on encounters, or focused gathering; the spaces where we engage with each other. He wrote, “Encounters provide the communication base for a circular flow of feeling among the participants as well as corrective compensation for deviant acts.”

Goffman identified the key structure of encounters, or its order, as “what shall be attended and disattended.” He wrote that the general rule of an encounter is “the understanding that contradictory feelings will be held in abeyance.” This becomes a frame about what is discussable and undiscussable. In order to move a “pattern of properties” from the disattended (or the undiscussable) to the attended (discussable), the individual “breaks frame.” To do this, the individual relies on what Goffman termed “realized resources,” described as “locally realizable events and roles.” In this case, board members would be able to think about alternative actions and ways of being. This is a focused exploration of alternative board identities that have as a design a type of inclusion (both of content and people) that is ethically and strategically aligned with purpose.

Goffman proposed “transformation rules,” inhibitory and facilitating rules that modify the encounter such it that gives expression to a “pattern of properties” that has been heretofore externalized, or unattended. Goffman identified two key factors: who is allowed to participate, and how the realized resources are allocated among participants—that is, who gets to reshape reality and how. Attention must be paid to the “world prescribed by the transformation rules and the unreality of other potential worlds.” When these worlds overlap, there is ease…but when they don’t, there is tension, a result of the senses’ potential (and bigger) reality and the one in which the individual is “obliged to dwell.”

As content and feelings that have been externalized or unattended to start to figure in the encounter, incidents occur: “slips…gaffes, or malapropisms, which unintentionally introduce information that places a sudden burden on the suppressive work being done in the encounter.” These incidents must be perceived, accepted, and transformed for easeful use in the encounter. Goffman described this integration function this way:

By contributing especially apt words and deeds, it is possible for a participant to blend these embarrassing matters smoothly into the encounter in an officially acceptable way, even while giving support to the prevailing order…These acts provide a formula through which a troublesome event can be redefined and its reconstituted meaning integrated into the prevailing definition of the situation, or a means of partially redefining the prevailing encounter, or various combinations of both.

Finally, Goffman noted that all it takes is one individual not being “spontaneously involved in the mutual activity” to weaken involvement for others and “their own belief in the reality of the world it prescribes.” Ultimately, these transformations, from unattended-to events or possibilities to spontaneous involvement in a local version of a potential world, deal directly with identity. “Events which cause trouble do not merely add disruptive noise but often convey information that threatens to discredit or supplant the organizing identities of the interaction.”

In essence, addressing issues of racial exclusion means shifting the identity of the organization. According to the data, it appears this is a challenge for nonprofits. But, as Walker notes, the world is changing and has long been demanding more from nonprofit boards. Let’s start to move those barriers out of the way, so if some lag behind, they are recognized for the unhealthy stagnancy they represent.

What to Do

Moving for a moment to how boards can approach such a transformational shift, we might consider the three-step change model proposed by Kurt Lewin, who is credited with establishing group dynamics as a field of study. The first step requires overcoming inertia by dismantling an existing mindset, establishing the needed change as necessary to survival. The second and third steps involve the change process itself, which can be unsettling, and the conscious adoption of a new mindset.

Leaders like you have to make clear that this kind of change is necessary for the survival and effectiveness of your nonprofit. Focus on that idea; does your board take this precept seriously? Creating a “burning platform” for your board is the first step, and you should immediately start finding a way to do so.

What comes next will vary for different organizations. What we’re looking for here is no mere surface-level diversity, an actual identity change through an expansion of mindset. Over the next year, NPQ will work with BoardSource to provide models of change processes in the area of board diversity that have worked. Don’t wait around for that, however; instead, distinguish yourself by becoming one of those models.

A New Platform for the Work

BoardSource’s expert rendering of this odd combination of stated discomfort and intention vs. enacted focused commitment gives us all a better sense of the platform from which we must launch a serious effort to diversify the leadership in this important sector, and for that, we are all very grateful—and that gratitude should be expressed through action.

You can read the report for yourselves; there’s much more within that we’ll be covering over the next week. NPQ will continue this particular conversation about board diversity with BoardSource, starting on September 12th. We hope you will join us then.

Ruth is Editor in Chief of the Nonprofit Quarterly. Her background includes forty-five years of experience in nonprofits, primarily in organizations that mix grassroots community work with policy change. Beginning in the mid-1980s, Ruth spent a decade at the Boston Foundation, developing and implementing capacity building programs and advocating for grantmaking attention to constituent involvement.

Cyndi Suarez is the Senior Editor at NPQ. She is the author of the forthcoming title, "The Power Manual," in which she outlines a new theory and practice of power. She has worked as a strategy and innovation consultant with a focus on networks and platforms. She studied Feminist Theory and organizational development for social change.

This article is from Nonprofit Quarterly’s Summer 2014 edition, “21st-Century Communications: Authenticity Matters.” It was first published online on September 3, 2014.

Dear Dr. Conflict,

Our executive director loves standing committees. These committees comprise sitting board members, past board members (once they are on a committee they don’t always leave when they leave the board), people from outside the board, the executive director, and usually a staff member or two.

Several issues repeat themselves year after year. The ED has each committee redefine itself, its purpose, and its goals annually, usually at the first meeting, so that new committee members (who have no real idea of what the agency does) make all kinds of suggestions. Since the members have no clue about the history, policies, or activities, the ideas can be in conflict with, or are already, current practices. Ninety-nine percent of the committee “goals” are, of course, staff work–related, and it becomes difficult for staff members to redirect the committee (the ED doesn’t), resist the need to say “we already do that,” or appear to be anything less than cooperative and enthusiastic without coming across as naysayers.

Hundreds of hours have been spent by staff preparing reports researching activities suggested by committee members that this agency has never had the ability or mission to carry out—usually something like providing consulting or creating a new service model that would require the investment of millions. If that weren’t frustrating enough, similar ideas pop up every few years (with new members), and the work repeats with the same conclusions.

By the way, the ED has abdicated staff evaluations to a standing committee, so staff members are leery of contradicting committee members or correcting the ED. Instead they simply do the work, since it will be noted on the annual appraisal: “she seems not to be open to suggestion”; “he does not like input”; “staff does not take direction”; “staff needs to be more positive.” (Should I mention that significant portions of information provided to the committee by the ED to start the work are just plain wrong?)

If I may add one more wrinkle to the situation: the executive director has been known to invite individuals (usually family members of past or present clients, who are highly antagonistic toward the agency and with a history of unpleasantness to staff) to sit on the standing committee, under the concept that willingness to expose our operation is in the interest of “visibility.”

Not Standing for It Anymore

Dear Not Standing for It,

Dr. Conflict can’t speak to the issue of your executive director’s loving standing committees, as love may have nothing to do with it: an agency’s bylaws often codify such matters. When bylaws are not explicit on the matter, however, many organizations trend toward an ad hoc committee approach. These task-specific committees have the benefit of preset deadlines and a beginning and end to their jobs, and that tends to work well for busy volunteers. Standing committees, on the other hand, tend to stagnate without an immediate need for product (and sometimes even with an immediate need). Dr. Conflict likes the idea of having non–board members on the committees. Outsiders bring valuable insights, and often become emissaries. Inviting former board members to attend keeps their wisdom around—if, in fact, they are wise.

Even in the case of standing committees, Dr. Conflict likes the annual practice of having each committee redefine itself. It is just good basic management. Moreover, it can be an excellent way to orient new board members. As you said, most board members haven’t a clue, and on-the-job training can be a very good thing. Even better, sometimes the best ideas for new ventures come from people like new board members, who know enough but not too much.

That said, Dr. Conflict is concerned about staff spending hundreds of hours preparing reports that go nowhere. If a standing committee meets four times a year for two hours, and staff spends forty hours supporting each meeting, it can easily add up to four weeks of work. Multiply this by six unnecessary committees, and you have a half-time position. Appalling as this may be, Dr. Conflict has seen many such situations.

Being on a board is hard work and carries significant responsibility. Dr. Conflict cannot abide make-work for board members. Believe Dr. Conflict: no board member (other than a masochist) looks forward to attending committee meetings that add no value.

That’s not to say that all committees are worthless. Whatever you call them— standing committee or not—some board-level committees should meet regularly. By board-level committees, Dr. Conflict means ones that help the board do its job (staff-level committees help the staff members do theirs).

The number of board-level committees an agency should have depends upon many variables, including the age and size of your agency. If you’re going through a tough time with finances, you’d expect more finance committee meetings. A good rule of thumb is that committees should meet only as necessary— in other words, only if it adds value.

Another rule of thumb is that the fewer standing committees, the better. That tends to push work upward to the full board, which addresses two of the oldest complaints about boards: no red meat on the table, and boring meetings.1

Dr. Conflict does not think it good practice for the executive director to abdicate staff evaluations to a standing committee. The ED should handle these evaluations directly, but if he or she wants to have board members riding along—for whatever reason, including feedback and counsel—that’s a matter of personal preference.

Finally, Dr. Conflict does not know enough about how recruiting is done at your agency to weigh in on your concerns about inviting family members of clients to join the board. Federal grants, for example, often require that a percentage of the board be clients.

So, what now? What are the next steps?

First, your executive director should work with the board to revisit its structure in general and job description in particular. Many organizations are playing with new designs, and the board may wish to think about some of these. Boards often unwittingly become dysfunctional because they don’t know any better. This is especially true given that many executive directors are novices, resulting in the blind leading the blind.

When it comes to the job of the board, there are usually just three major duties: setting direction, monitoring performance, and delegating effectively— beginning with the board itself and stopping at the executive director.

Once done with the structure and job description review and honoring the rule that board-level committees should only help the board do its job, your agency likely needs a governance committee to deal with recruiting and onboarding new members. It definitely should have a finance/audit committee to assess performance. Some boards will empower an executive committee to help with delegation issues related to the executive director.

Relative to what most boards do, the three most popular committees are governance/nominating (83 percent); finance, including audit (83 percent); and executive (78 percent). Fundraising is a distant fourth (55 percent), followed by the also-rans of plain audit (27 percent), program (27 percent), and marketing/ communications/PR (26 percent).2

Where’s the development function to raise money? Where is the advocacy piece that builds allies? These are board member jobs, not board jobs. Boards don’t raise money, and boards don’t champion the agency to the community; board members (and staff members) do. Remember that boards only exist when they are in session—at all other times they must do their work by delegating to others.

Second, you need to check your attitude. You have choices about how you conduct yourself with board members. Generally speaking, board members recognize that they can only do their job effectively if people like you enable them. Stop sitting on the sidelines and crying about how bad things are. You have the ability to courteously speak up and guide your board members to better performance. Pick yourself up and become the governance content expert for your agency. Keep in mind that “to be irrelevant would be a step forward for many boards,”3 and ask yourself what you can do to help move your agency’s governance to excellence.

Befuddled by the machinations of your board? Perplexed by your ED’s past and present practices? Dr. Conflict to the rescue! (Do you have a conflict? Ask the good Doctor what to do by telling him all about it in an e-mail to editorinchief@npqmag.org.)

Dr. Conflict is the pen name of Mark Light. He is founder and president of First Light Group (www.firstlightgroup.com), whose mission is to bring your future within reach through executive coaching, sustainable strategy, teaching and training, and writing. Light is also senior professional lecturer at DePaul University School of Public Service.

Problem Boards or Board Problem?

Editors’ note: This article was first published in summer 2003 and is featured in NPQ’s special winter 2012 edition, “Emerging Forms of Nonprofit Governance.”

The past twenty years have seen the steady growth of training programs, consulting practices, academic research, and guidebooks aimed at improving the performance of nonprofit boards. This development reflects both hopes and doubts about the nonprofit board. On the one hand, boards are touted as a decisive force for ensuring the accountability of nonprofit organizations. On the other hand, the board is widely regarded as a problematic institution. And it’s not just the occasional nonprofit financial implosion or scandal that’s troubling. All institutions, after all, have their failures. Perhaps more worrisome is the widespread sense that underperforming boards are the norm, not the exception.

After contributing to these board-improvement efforts for over two decades, as both researchers and consultants, we have recently looked afresh at the challenge of improving nonprofit boards as part of the Governance Futures project. Conceived by BoardSource (formerly the National Center for Nonprofit Boards), in collaboration with the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University, the project seeks to re-conceptualize governance. Although it ultimately intends to generate new and practical design strategies, we have focused first on the problems of the board—on the theory that a better framing of the problem will lead to better responses. Through dialogue with practitioners, a review of the literature on nonprofit governance, and the application of various intellectual frameworks (from organizational behavior to sociology), we have begun to see the cottage industry of board improvement in a new light. Most importantly, we have concluded that we have been working on the wrong problem.

Problems of Performance

The problem with boards has largely been understood as a problem of performance. Judging from our recent discussions and interviews with board members, executives, and consultants, three board-performance problems appear most prevalent. First, dysfunctional group dynamics—rivalries, domination of the many by the few, bad communication, and bad chemistry—impede collective deliberation and decision making. Second, too many board members are disengaged. They don’t know what’s going on in the organization, nor do they demonstrate much desire to find out. Third, and most important, board members are often uncertain of their roles and responsibilities. They can’t perform well because they don’t know what their job is. When we spoke with twenty-eight nonprofit governance consultants about their recent engagements with troubled boards, nineteen characterized the client’s problem as ignorance or confusion about roles and responsibilities.

Scores of analysts have addressed this problem and, in response, offered one version or another of an official job description for the board. The vast, prescriptive literature can fairly be distilled into five functions:

Set the organization’s mission and overall strategy, and modify both as needed.

Develop and conserve the organization’s resources—both funds and property.

Serve as a bridge and buffer between the organization and its environment, advocating for the organization and building support in its wider community.

The roles-and-responsibilities conception of board performance has obvious appeal. With a problem defined as ignorance, the solution becomes knowledge. And since we already possess—in the form of official job descriptions—the knowledge that boards need, we need only disseminate that knowledge to unenlightened trustees to cure the problem. The expectation is that we can train our way out of board problems.

Behind these problems of performance, however, looms another, more fundamental problem: one of purpose.

Some advocates of a roles-and-responsibilities approach inadvertently acknowledge this problem when they reason that, since the board endures as an institution, it must be important. “The widespread existence of boards,” writes Cyril Houle, “means that they must possess values which are apparently essential to modern life. It will therefore be useful to assess the reasons why boards are important.”1 The very formulation of this approach—or variations common in the literature—betrays a fundamental problem. If the board is so important, why do we need a whole literature to explain why this is so? This question raises another: What if the central problem plaguing boards is not ignorance about important roles and responsibilities but lack of a compelling purpose in the first place?

Problems of Purpose

We can approach the problem of purpose in two ways. We can attempt to expose the board as an irrelevant institution constructed around a set of hollow roles and responsibilities. Or, as we prefer, we can ask whether the purposes now ascribed to boards might be necessary, but insufficient, to sustain engaged and effective service by nonprofit board members. Even this approach, however, requires some reflection on the problem of purpose. We start with three causes of the problem.

The Substitute’s Dilemma: The Most Essential Work Can Be the Least Meaningful. By law, the board’s fundamental purpose is to hold a nonprofit accountable to the broader community. The law offers little guidance, however, on how boards should do so—beyond referring to broadly conceived “duties of loyalty and care.” The standard statements of roles and responsibilities offered to board members attempt to add flesh to this legal skeleton. But a job predicated on legal accountability is, almost by definition, not a compelling job. To ensure this accountability, boards focus on norms and standards of minimally acceptable behavior. Trustees are tasked to prevent trouble more than promote success.

This approach places board members in a position akin to that of the maligned substitute teacher. As an institution,the substitute teacher works effectively. The device assures school administrators and parents that children who might otherwise run amok will remain under control. But the job of the substitute teacher is singularly unattractive. Adherence to minimum standards—not trying to teach but merely trying to keep order—is as or more challenging than actually teaching. It is also far less rewarding. So it is with board members. What we have essentially asked is that trustees keep order.

Why not concede that boards do unglamorous but essential work and get on with it? The reason lies again in the paradox of substitute teaching. The teacher who educates children actually stands a better chance of keeping order than the teacher required only to keep order. Similarly, the board that is expected to improve organizational performance also stands a better chance of ensuring accountability. By focusing primarily on accountability, we have created a job without a compelling purpose. As a result, board members become disengaged. And the more disengaged they are, the less likely trustees are to ensure accountability—the very reason we created boards in the first place. By asking for a little, we get even less.

The Monarch’s Challenge: Important Work Is Sometimes Institutional, Not Individual. The problem is not that the board is some pointless appendage that renders board members inconsequential. To the contrary, the board, as an institution, is so important and effective that it can sometimes function almost without regard to the effort of individual board members. In that sense, a board may be more like a heart—too vital to rely on conscious effort to perform. Consider four cases where the board can perform well and thus leave board members little to do.

First, boards provide legitimacy for their organizations. Unlike the business sector, where stakeholders can judge a corporation by financial performance, the prospective funders, clients, and employees of the nonprofit sector often rely on signals and proxies—none more compelling than the presence of a distinguished board—to assess an organization’s efficacy. But beyond lending their names to the organization’s letterhead, and occasionally attending a public function or official event associated with the organization, board members need not do anything to create legitimacy. They merely confer it.

Similarly, the board provides managers with what organizational theorists call “sense-making opportunities” simply by meeting, writes Karl Weick.2 The mere prospect of a board meeting—where little or nothing may actually happen—requires managers to prepare written and oral reports that make sense of organizational events, challenges, and data. Management must be able to communicate to the board an integrated and sensible account that describes and interprets the organization’s situation. Presumably, a more curious or inquisitive board will compel managers to be better sense-makers, but the mere occasion of board meetings goes a long way by itself.

The board, as an entity, also encourages vigilance by managers. Nonprofit executives often say, “The board keeps me on my toes” or “I can feel the board looking over my shoulder.” Henry Mintzberg, a strategy theorist, likened the corporate board to a bumblebee that buzzes around the head of the CEO. Ever mindful of the possibility of being stung, the CEO remains vigilant. As that image suggests, even random, annoying activity can be sufficient to keep managers alert. The flurry of activity alone has important effects.3

Parsing these individual and institutional roles, we return to the legal role of the board as an accountability agent. We can construe society’s mandate to the board as an active one: ensure accountability. But it’s also true that the wider society’s interests are satisfied to a large extent by the mere existence of the board, which serves as a legally answerable entity in the event of wrongdoing by the organization. The board assumes the ultimate legal responsibility. We hope that responsibility leads the board to “due diligence,” but nothing in the law can compel the board to also be high-performing.

As trustees attempt to define the purpose of a body that in some ways requires little of them, they face something of the predicament of a monarch in a modern, democratically governed state. It’s the institution of the monarchy—not the individual monarch—that does much of the work. The monarchy helps to create a national identity, reassuring and unifying the country (especially in times of crisis), marking important events through ceremony, and, not least, developing the tourism economy. Some monarchs are more likeable than others, but most purposes of the institutional monarchy can be fulfilled regardless of the individual monarch’s capabilities or personality. For a monarch, the solution to this problem of purpose is to respect the official job description, however limited, and then to invent an unofficial job description in order to use the position to advance causes close to the monarch’s heart. Board members face the same challenge. If they rely on the institution of the board to generate meaningful work, they are likely to be disappointed.

The Firefighter’s Down Time: Important Work Is Episodic. Sometimes boards resemble neither substitute teachers nor modern monarchs. Sometimes boards are personally engaged in important work where the trustees’ performance proves decisive. Under these circumstances, such as hiring a CEO, considering a merger, deciding whether to expand or eliminate programs, or dealing with a financial crisis or personnel scandal, boards are called on to be diligent and purposeful. But in times of calm, when there is no one to hire or fire, no strategic choice to make, and no crisis to manage, then what is the board’s purpose?

We tend to take little account of the fact that important board work can be highly episodic. Board members meet at regularly prescribed intervals, even when there is no urgent work to do. If boards are to be strategy-makers, as many governance gurus advise, can management realistically devise an agenda replete with important “bet the company” questions at every meeting? In response to this demand for strategic content, staff may begin to inflate routine issues into questions of strategy. Board members and staff alike soon begin to equate meeting with governing. And when the important work that boards sometimes do remains undifferentiated from the mundane or even contrived work that comes in the intervals, the important work becomes devalued. Encouraged to go through the motions, board members are frequently driven to ask the ultimate question of purpose: Why am I here?

Boards once filled “down time” by taking a direct role in managing the organization. But the rise of professional nonprofit management has discouraged—though not eliminated—that practice. With the widespread acceptance of the official job description for boards, such hands-on work now constitutes “meddling” or “micromanaging”—a breach of the staff-board boundary. The modern consensus is that nonprofit organizations do not need boards to manage operations. But does it follow that nonprofits need boards to govern every time they convene, even when there are no strategic imperatives to decide?

In most fields where important work is episodic, practitioners do not insist otherwise. A firefighting company, for example, spends only a small fraction of its time actually fighting fires. Some time is devoted to training; some is used to maintain equipment; some is spent on fire prevention; and some is simply spent waiting— cooking, eating, watching television, and informally strengthening the camaraderie of the group. Instead of making the preposterous claim that a fire company is always fighting fires, fire departments put down time to good use.

What do boards do with their down time? In practice, of course, we know that boards do more than govern in formal board meetings. For example, we asked board members to think about a “no-board scenario” by posing the following question: What would be the single gravest consequence to your organization if the board did not meet or conduct board business in any way for a two-year period? In response, board members said the organization would suffer the loss of fundraising capacity, loss of good advice or expertise, and loss of contacts in the community. Though these assets certainly help nonprofits, and may improve organizational performance, they are not governing per se, and they are not always developed or delivered during formal meetings. They are downtime activities that boards pursue when they are not called upon to govern. If boards approached the question of how to use down time explicitly, rather than lament the absence of a perpetually strategic agenda, they might, in fact, become more valuable assets to their organizations.

Specifically, board members might tackle the question of what constitutes effective preparation or readiness to govern. In lieu of formal board training events at long intervals, boards could construe learning about their communities or constituencies as vital, continuous preparation for governing. Instead of merely recruiting members who appear to be well informed, organizations could use their meetings to promote learning by all board members. Board members could construct and pursue a learning agenda through field work, meetings with other boards, or extended interaction with constituents. By learning as a board, the board would have a deeper and shared body of knowledge available when the time comes for important decisions.

If board members are not simply uninformed about their roles and responsibilities but are struggling to find meaningful work in an institution beset by problems of purpose, then what kind of board-improvement strategies do we need? If we can’t train our way out of problems of purpose, then what?

Problems of Reform

In recent years, the field of nonprofit governance has approached the challenge of board improvement by continually trying to narrow the scope of the proper work for boards to a set of canonical responsibilities. Given the persistent dissatisfaction with board performance, perhaps this approach should be reconsidered. We can start with three questions. Why have we felt compelled to narrow board work to certain prescribed functions? Have we trimmed board service to the right set of essentials? And does the official job description really advance better governance?

The official job description undoubtedly represents an earnest effort to improve governance by focusing boards on the fundamentals. But it also solves another pressing need: how to divide organizational labor between nonprofit board members and an ever more professionalized nonprofit management. After all, the rise of professional management, rather than a sudden decline in trustee knowledge and intelligence, may best explain why board members have become increasingly uncertain about their roles. In a word, they have been displaced. As Harold Wilensky argues in a seminal analysis, the rise of new professions typically involves “hard competition,” in which a would-be profession “sloughs off dirty work” on nearby occupations.4 Doctors gave unpleasant tasks to nurses, who shifted them off to nursing aides, where they will remain until the emergence of a nurse’s aide profession. Faculty offloaded admissions and advising on a new cadre of student personnel administrators. Though not as ungracious as sloughing off dirty work, professional nonprofit management has gently kicked the boards upstairs—confining them as much as possible to policy and strategy (even though there is little evidence that boards are as influential as managers in the policy-and-strategy spheres).

Many board members have trouble staying there, and when they cross the boundary into management territory, many executives and consultants are quick to condemn them as either woefully ignorant or downright mischievous. Whatever the reason, when boards so “misbehave,” managers proffer the official job description as guidance, or wave it like a restraining order. But in reality, it’s hard to discern the line that divides policy and strategy from administration and operations. How can we be sure an operational matter is not of sufficient significance to warrant the board’s attention? It doesn’t help to assert that governors should not manage when the difference between management and governance is not crystal clear. It’s also hard to govern at arm’s length from the organization and without first-hand knowledge of the “business.” How can a board develop strategy without direct contact with the operational realities of the organization—which is precisely where new strategies and ideas often emerge and are invariably validated or discredited? How can a board evaluate the performance of an organization without some direct knowledge of the enterprise?

The official job description does provide some opportunities for more active, hands-on work. Board members are often expected to represent the board to various social, civic, or professional networks, and to help the organization understand the larger environment better by bringing information from those networks into the board room. And boards have been granted, if not mandated, an enormous role in fundraising.

Why do these functions make the short list of essentials? True, the organization needs help in these areas, board members are good at these tasks, and trustees are often willing to perform them. But board members are not uniquely qualified for this work. Indeed, management could and does work on both funding and community support. But, in truth, these functions have one important characteristic: they keep board members busy outside the organization, where they are not apt to interfere with the work of managers and staff. In other words, the official job description doesn’t insist that boards only govern, but the list improves the odds that trustees will not get in the way of managers.

If we were satisfied with the performance of boards, the fact that the official job description is not entirely, conceptually coherent wouldn’t matter. If a pinch of policy, a heap of fundraising, and a dollop of strategy added up to better governed organizations, then why quibble? But given the frustrations of many board members and a pervasive sense among trustees—and those trying to help them—that their time and talent (and ultimately their treasure) are vastly underutilized, it is time to revisit our assumptions about what boards do and should do.

Rather than narrowing our sense of the board’s work, we should try to broaden it. In fact, in developing managers or leaders, we do precisely this. We urge them to look beyond their narrow, official job descriptions to the more subtle, important, and personally satisfying aspects of their jobs. We might try the same for boards, asking how we can make board work more meaningful for board members and more consequential for their organizations. For those who want answers now, this may entail entirely too much thrashing about the problem. But a new sense of the problem of purpose may be more useful than still more solutions to the problem of performance. The right solution to the wrong problem rarely works.

Richard P. Chait is a professor at the Graduate School of Education, Harvard University. Chait is co-author of Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards (John Wiley & Sons, 2005).

Barbara E. Taylor is a governance consultant and senior consultant with Academic Search Consultation Service. She is also co-author of Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards (John Wiley & Sons, 2005).

But even among enviable boards, mediocrity has a way of slipping in. Here are four problem behaviors that once they appear need to be fixed immediately.

POOR ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS

Beyond the usual complications of family, work, and other commitments, the primary reason people fail to show up at meetings is that the meetings aren’t productive or interesting. The best solution is to create challenging agendas that focus on decision making. You might also try these easy to implement ideas:

Hold fewer meetings.
If you gather monthly, try 10 meetings per year. Make each one count a little more.

Distribute the agenda beforehand.At least one week before the meeting, share the agenda with a reminder about the date, time, and location. Hint: controversial agenda items always boost turnout.

Feed people.It’s one of the oldest ways to express appreciation. If cost is a concern, rotate this task among the board members and ask them to take turns covering the expense or bringing food.

Include a “mission moment.”Author and consultant Kay Sprinkel Grace advises that every time you gather, include a personal testimonial from a client, or a video excerpt from your recent performance, or a brief slide show about the land your organization just preserved—something tangible to reconnect trustees with the mission and remind them why they serve.

POOR FOLLOW-THROUGH ON COMMITMENTS

Perhaps the most common complaint about boards centers around promises not kept. “I’ll take care of it,” says the well-meaning trustee—and then life gets in the way. Here are a few thoughts to keep your board firmly on task:

Negotiate clear guidelines for how much time you expect of board members.This begins with recruitment but should be revisited at least once a year with the full board.

Develop and use a board job description.Make sure you have a written agreement that outlines mutual expectations. When you sit down to talk about time, take a look at this document to ensure that it remains accurate and relevant.

Build “time off” into the board calendar.This can be done collectively: “Since we tend to get less work done in August, let’s agree not to make any commitments that month.” As an alternative, free time could be allocated on a rotating basis: “Anna’s daughter is visiting in April, so she’s requested no extra board work that month. Who has a busy stretch ahead and wants to claim May as time off?”

PERSONAL AGENDAS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Every now and then, people join a nonprofit board to re-create the world in their own image. However, the vast majority of trustees assume their responsibilities with good intentions and a degree of humility.

If you begin with the assumption of goodwill and reasonable motives, it will be much easier to reach a consensus about conflicts of interest. Here’s how to do it.

Try to define inappropriate behavior before it begins.It’s unlikely you can tackle this subject in the course of a regular meeting, so put it on the agenda for your next board retreat. Create examples to debate and then use these examples to develop a policy.

For example, if you’re a trustee of a school, how far can you go to promote a school policy that would benefit a subset of the students, including your own child? If you’re working to conserve open space, how would you prioritize protection of adjacent land that could increase the monetary value of your own property?

Request conflict of interest policies from sister organizations.If your group belongs to a peer network or is evaluated by a credentialing agency, ask for a template or a list of criteria that cover conflicts of interest.

Name it.If you believe a trustee has crossed the line by promoting his or her self-interest, take responsibility and raise the issue. As a first step, talk with the person individually, perhaps accompanied by the board chair. If this strategy fails, you may need to bring your concerns to the attention of the full board.

Recuse yourself.If you and your colleagues agree you have a conflict of interest, step aside while others make the relevant decision. If necessary, the board can create a benchmark to trigger this recusal. For example, if two-thirds of the trustees perceive a conflict of interest, the relevant board member(s) would be required to step aside for that vote or other decision-making process.

INACTIVE BOARD MEMBERS WHO REALLY NEED TO LEAVE

I'm a strong proponent of term limits for board members. Particularly valuable trustees can return to the board after a year or two off, but the practice of term limits institutionalizes turnover and forces the board to seek out new blood, new energy, and new ideas.

If you don't yet have such a policy, and your trustees just won’t go away, consider the following options:

Develop and institute a board job description.Clarifying your mutual expectations and commitments—making them specific and tangible, rather than relying on assumptions—will help to level the playing field for all leaders.

Use this job description to initiate a self-evaluation process for all board members.Based on the evaluation, ineffective board members will sometimes re-commit to the work and improve their performance. In other cases, individuals who can’t or won’t meet the standards will take the opportunity to bow out. “It’s a new era,” they’ll say, “and you’re looking for things I can’t provide.”

Include specific criteria for meeting attendance.For example, “Three consecutive unexcused absences will be considered resignation from the board.”

Create an “honorary board” for those leaving the governing board.
If appropriate, keep the names of departing trustees on the letterhead and maintain their connection to the organization. They can even be assigned specific tasks—for example, organizing a donor recognition event or hosting a house party.

Live with it.
You need a critical mass of effective board members—for grassroots groups, typically five or six active and committed people—to be effective. If things are working reasonably well, you may decide to accept reality: not everyone will serve with the same level of passion and skill. Do the best you can with the people you’ve got.

The preceding post is adapted from Andy Robinson’s new book, What Every Board Member Needs to Know, Do, and Avoid. Robinson is also author ofHow to Raise $500 to $5000 from Almost Anyone, co-author with Andrea Kihlstedt of Train Your Board (and Almost Everyone Else) to Raise Money,and co-author with Nancy Wasserman of The Board Member’s Easier Than You Think Guide to Nonprofit Finances.

Every organization dreams of recruiting and retaining a board of visionary planners, generous investors, willing askers, and passionate pragmatists.

Despite these yearnings, too many boards are assembled without a strategy. Board selection is pushed by a date when a “slate” must be presented. Frenzied phone calls result in the inappropriate recruitment of people who may be well intentioned but not able to propel the organization to the next level.

Those recruited in haste are often assured “there’s nothing to it.” They’re told such things as “You don’t have to do anything but come to meetings” or, worse yet, “We just need your name—please say yes.”

In The Ultimate Board Member’s Book, I explore the core attributes of high-performing boards. Here, let me simply single out five ways you yourself can motivate your board to serve at its best.

KEEP YOUR ORGANIZATION’S MISSION AT THE FOREFRONT

A large part of a board member’s responsibility is to be a “keeper of the mission.” The board’s ability to keep the mission is directly linked to its members’ ability to articulate it. And that requires regular exposure and vigilance.

One sure way is to keep the focus on why you do what you do, not just on what you do. Site tours and meetings with people who benefit from your organization can keep board members reminded of why they got involved in the first place.

Secondly, board meetings should always include a “mission moment”—5 to 10 minutes in the middle of the agenda to hear from a grateful patient, happy teacher, transformed client, satisfied parent, or other individual who shares their pleasure with what your board members have done for them and others.

BE FORTHRIGHT ABOUT THE TIME

Some organizations seem unable or unwilling to correctly assess the time they expect from board members. They end up conveying unrealistic expectations—usually downplaying the hours required to fulfill the various responsibilities.

Whether you’re recruiting a new board member or a standing member of a subcommittee, be absolutely clear about the time commitment. How many meetings will they be expected to attend? How many committees might they serve on? How much work is expected outside of board meetings? How many hours spent in fundraising training, cultivation sessions, special events?

One of the gifts board members give us is their time. If we waste it, they can easily—and quickly—become resentful.

BE AS TRANSPARENT AS GIN

Because board members hold the legal and fiduciary responsibility for your organization, they must know the truth about all facets of its operation. Their right to be informed is incontestable.

Transparency, with its dimensions of full accountability and disclosure, is the watchword of the 21st century. Donors want it, board members ought to demand it, and the community deserves it. To prevent any withholding of information, do your part to ensure that there’s sufficient board involvement in financial, legal, and programmatic evaluation.

Granted, there will be instances when it’s inappropriate for the full board to know all the details of a situation (sensitive personnel issues come to mind). These are best kept in the executive committee.

But excepting these few instances, help your board members exercise their right as the “owners” of the organization to be completely in the know.

HOLD PURPOSEFUL MEETINGS

The purpose of board meetings is twofold. On the one hand, members attend to review financial reports, discuss new policy recommendations, hear of recent activities, and act upon committee recommendations.

But these agenda items are also the framework for something equally important: the creative interaction of the board itself.

Board meetings that fulfill their true purpose do the following:

Promote a sense of teamwork

Reinforce the shared vision

Afford time to recount stories and successes

Connect board members with the work of staff

Provide opportunities for social interaction, and

Reinforce the overall sense of the mission and its importance to the community

That’s a big assignment. But if you’ve ever attended such a meeting, you know the feeling of exhilaration. The air practically crackles.

CLARIFY THE ROLE OF FUNDRAISING

Some organizations assign the job of raising money to the development or fundraising committee. Others believe it’s the responsibility of the full board. Still others, such as large universities and hospitals, shift more and more of the load to staff.

Regardless of the approach, board members have an irrefutable responsibility to give. They signed up to take on all of philanthropy’s tasks to the degree they can—joining, serving, give, and asking. The job isn’t multiple choice.

As for their specific role in fundraising, ideally they’ll play one or more of three important roles:

Askers call on prospective donors and seek their investment in the organization.

Cultivators bring people into contact with the organization and generally prepare them to be asked.

Stewards keep the relationship going once the gift is made.

What is important to understand is that fundraising is a multifaceted activity and the entire board must be meaningfully involved in one way or another.

]]>Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:03:13 GMTFive Questions Every New Nonprofit Board Member Should Askhttp://arizonanonprofits.org/news/news.asp?id=339425
http://arizonanonprofits.org/news/news.asp?id=339425Five Questions Every New Nonprofit Board Member Should Ask

Congratulations, you’ve just been appointed to one of the more prestigious nonprofit boards in your community! You’re really excited, because you have a passion for the organization’s mission and have heard nothing but great things about it. But after the warm glow cools down a little, you realize the pressure is on—how are you going to make your mark and really contribute to the organization? Start with asking the executive director or board chair these five questions and let their answers guide you to success.

1. WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO BE DOING?

Although you would think the answer to this question is obvious, it’s actually a pretty good thing to get some clarification on. Are the expectations just for you to show up at board meetings and share your wisdom? There’s nothing wrong with that, but most boards ask much more of their members. Are you also expected to put in extra hours attending community meetings and fundraisers, selling tickets to fundraisers, helping with fundraising outreach, volunteering in programs, etc.? And what are the attendance expectations for those board meetings? I’ve seen cases where board members didn’t realize the bylaws set minimum attendance requirements to remain on the board.

There may be written expectations for board members, but a conversation about what you uniquely bring to the board is equally valuable. You should also take note if the answer you got to “What am I supposed to be doing?” is nebulous or shows a lack of focus or low expectations. Be wary of low expectations; they may indicate the organization doesn’t know how to engage and use volunteers effectively.

2. HOW CAN I HELP WITH YOUR FUNDRAISING WHEN I DON'T DO FUNDRAISING?

One of a board member’s key responsibilities should be to help bring resources into the organization. Although some board members may be knowledgeable about and perfectly comfortable with this task, most have no background in it and are decidedly uncomfortable with it. Volunteers often think of fundraising as getting in front of someone and doing the ask for money, which can be a very difficult conversation. But there are other ways to help bring in resources, such as:

Identifying prospects. If you’re a typical board member, you are well connected in the community and can identify individuals, foundations, or companies who have a passion for your organization’s mission. Starting with who might support the cause is important.

Strategizing. After identifying who might be willing to support the organization, you can help determine about the best way to approach them. Fundraising usually involves multiple steps and meetings—an organization rarely goes straight to the ask. Knowing the best approach to a potential donor is crucial, and someone who knows the prospect—you—is going to be valuable in thinking through the process.

Advice visits. Everyone likes being asked what he or she thinks. You can contribute to the organization’s fundraising efforts by setting up an informal meeting to ask for advice from the prospects you’ve identified. It may lead to direct funding or could lead to new ideas or prospects.

Thanking. Your personal thank-you call or handwritten note will go a long way in howing a donor just how much he or she is appreciated. Every board member, no matter how uncomfortable with other aspects of fundraising, can be part of the thanking team.

3. I'M NOT AN ACCOUNTANT; HOW DO I KNOW IF THE FINANCES ARE OK?

It’s true that as a board member, you have a fiduciary responsibility for the organization. You and your fellow board members are the stewards of the organization’s resources and must provide oversight as to how they are used to fulfill the organization’s mission.

It’s also true that nonprofit financials can be intimidating to someone without a financial or management background. If the organization is following best practices, your executive director will do a financial orientation and brief you on the reports you should expect.

There are other ways to increase your comfort level.

Make sure the board treasurer or finance committee chair has a financial background, is familiar with nonprofit bookkeeping, and is scrutinizing the monthly financials. If the experts are comfortable, you should feel more comfortable.

Make sure the board sees all financial audit reports, and that the auditors report directly to the board. Not every nonprofit has an annual audit, but if yours does, it should be performed by an independent audit firm that reports directly to the board, or at least the finance or audit committee. Even you are not directly involved in the audit process, you should review the report and make sure you don’t have questions.

Make sure the board sees and approves the organization’s Form 990 each year before it’s filed with the IRS. In addition to providing a chance to review the finances reported on the form, this step allows board members to see how the organization is being positioned to the public, as the 990 is widely distributed and read.

4. HOW CAN I BE AN AMBASSADOR FOR THE ORGANIZATION IF I'M NOT A PUBLIC SPEAKER?

Some of the most effective venues for sharing your passion for the organization, its mission, and its programs are the informal opportunities you have interacting in the community. These interactions don’t take any public speaking skill, but they send a powerful message. Make sure staff has helped you develop a two-minute elevator speech so you hit on the highlights and are comfortable that you’re giving the right information. Then watch as eyes light up when you share your passion for the organization.

Because you are an unpaid volunteer, you have a huge impact when you share how you feel about the organization. People know that you are laying your reputation on the line, and that you’re not being paid to tout the organization. You volunteer status increases the effect your words have on your listeners. It’s as if you’re using a megaphone to share your passion.

5. ARE THERE PERSONAL FINANCIAL EXPECTATIONS OF ME?

Although this question should have been clarified before you joined the board, it’s surprising how often it is not directly addressed. Many nonprofits require personal donations from board members, sometimes with a minimum amount. It makes sense that if a prospect is going to donate to the nonprofit, the volunteers closest to it have invested in the organization first. In fact, this is often a question on grant applications—that box of “100% board giving” must be checked before the grant application will be considered.

A board will often recruit high-level representation from a major employer. There should be a policy on whether the corporate gift from that organization fulfills that board member’s personal requirement, or if the individual must give. The same should be clear for heads of foundations.

There are certainly many other questions a new board member should have answered to feel comfortable that he or she can make a significant impact for the nonprofit, but these are five questions to start with. Hopefully they are the beginning of deeper conversations that fast track the new board member into full engagement and a highly successful tenure on the board.

The preceding is a guest post by Bill Hoffman of Bill Hoffman & Associates, LLC, a Tampa-based consulting firm with national-level independent sector expertise in educational engagement strategies, on profit leadership transitions, and organizational and board development. Bill has senior-level nonprofit management experience in education, having been the president of one of the nation’s top K-12 education foundations; functioned as interim CEO for prominent national and state education and philanthropic associations; and led national, regional and state boards of directors. He is also an adjunct professor at National University, teaching Non-profit Leadership and Board Development.

Josiah happily served for six years as a board member of a social profit organization focused on homeless youth, the maximum allowed by the board’s term limit. He thought about transitioning to a volunteer direct-service role, but realized he truly enjoyed governance. He approached another social profit organization with a mission close to his heart and expressed interest in board membership. The board chair was thrilled to welcome a newcomer with solid board experience to their organization. Josiah was quickly nominated and elected to the board.

Six months later, Josiah was on the brink of resigning. “For six years, I helped make big decisions,” he told a co-worker. “We talked about how our work fit into the big picture in our community, how we could influence policies that impact homeless youth. Now, the board is talking about where to position the registration table for the gala and whether to use balloons or flowers as centerpieces. None of the other board members see a problem. They’re excited about making these decisions.”

What’s going on here? The problem is a mismatch between Josiah’s “sweet spot” as a board member and the lifecycle stage of the organization. Susan Kenny Stevens, Ph.D., author of Nonprofit Lifecycles, identifies seven stages of lifecycle capacity. The homeless youth organization sounds like it’s in the maturity stage, and the second likely is in the start-up stage.

Although the legal responsibilities of board members are consistent across organizations, the actual work of the board is highly stage related. Each stage has characteristic strengths and challenges. There’s no judgment in this. A start-up’s boundless passion, the sprinting to keep up during the growth stage, and the steady leadership of maturity are all great places to be as a mission-driven organization.

A key to building a successful board, often overlooked, is matching the organization’s current lifecycle stage to the temperaments and preferences of board members. Idea and start-up stage organizations, lacking a deep bench of paid staff, often welcome a board member with a CPA who is willing keep the books and a marketing expert who offers to create a communication and marketing plan. These “jump in and do it” folks may be frustrated if they find themselves on the board of a mature-stage organization; their offers to work side-by-side with the professional staff will be perceived as micromanaging.

Josiah’s lesson learned is that he is most comfortable and useful as a mature stage board member. His board colleagues who enjoy handling the details of the gala bring much-needed value to the start-up organization; without their hands and hours, the work won’t get done.

Social profit organizations and prospective board members are wise to ask the question, “What is our current lifecycle stage and how does that impact the attributes needed in board members?” The answers — hands-on workers, generative thinkers, strategic visionaries and a host of other attributes — can provide guidance to boards recruiting new members and to potential members seeking a good fit.

Today’s emerging workforce is the largest and most diverse in American history. According to The Millennial Impact Project, it numbers nearly 80 million strong, and will account for 50 percent of the workforce by 2020, less than four years from now. Despite their position as an emerging economic and social force, young professionals are not proportionally represented on organizational boards. The 2014 Boards Practices Report, found that more than half of surveyed organizations reported that their youngest director was older than 50 years of age, and only 15 percent reported appointing younger board members.

While the director-level is generally thought of as the exclusive domain of established professionals, excluding younger directors is a missed opportunity. Boards with generational diversity can benefit greatly from the unique perspective that young professionals are able to provide, including strategies for better engaging the new workforce and younger generations; new trends and best practices in public relations, communications, and social media; and how to promote the mission and goals of an organization using platforms and mechanisms that traverse generational gaps.

In addition, young professionals, with their innate understanding of grassroots communications and fundraising, are able to develop comprehensive strategies to bring each facet of an organization together to build greater community buy-in and awareness. Young professionals also understand the changing workforce and its shift in loyalty toward mission over brand and benefits over salary. It becomes more and more important that organizations and municipalities understand the social environment and connectivity necessary to retain top-notch talent, and young professional board members allow for that kind of shift in thinking.

If these “softer” reasons aren’t enough to convince nonprofit boards to include young professionals, the financial argument should cement their place at every table. While today’s young professionals are not yet able to give in significant amounts, their willingness to volunteer at a high level allows an organization to engage and steward the next generation of major gift prospects. Furthermore, not only is their future giving potential high, they are connected to, and willing to connect the organization to, other young volunteers and young donors. The challenge for an organization is understanding how young professionals give and how this differs from previous generations. A focus and priority on solutions have led to a decrease in large reliable annual contributions to one organization and an increase in smaller monthly donations to a several organizations. A failure to understand these trends will leave an organization in the financial lurch in years to come. Boards, literally, cannot afford to exclude this demographic.

In Arizona, our state must maintain its economic and social competitiveness, and so it is essential that we begin to cultivate the leaders of today on more than just the staff level. We must build organizations that are aware of the changing needs of the economy, the emerging workforce and the political sector. This awareness can be built only by actually having young professionals in the boardroom, learning with older professionals and actively creating the future we want.